Kansas pursues child support from sperm donor

[proud2BlibKansan]

TOPEKA -- A Kansas man who signed away any parental rights when he donated sperm to a Topeka couple is now being pursued by the state for child support after the mother received financial assistance for the baby.

A lawyer for William Marotta argues that the state’s effort to have Marotta declared the baby’s father runs contrary to a 2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling on sperm donors, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.

A hearing on Marotta’s motion to dismiss the case is scheduled for Jan. 8 in Shawnee County District Court.

Marotta, a Topeka mechanic who has taken in foster children with his wife, answered a Craigslist ad in 2009 from a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor.

The women who placed the ad, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, described themselves in an email to Marotta as a “financially stable lesbian couple,” with Bauer working outside the home and Schreiner being a stay-at-home mom with their other children

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/29/3986152/state-pursuing-child-support-from.html#storylink=cpy

[benld74]

1. Kansas is truly sinking lower than I could ever possibly imagine

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. It's a nuthouse here.

[benld74]

5. I have a high school buddy living just over the MO/KS line

even HE has changed. Something in the water? Are you life long KS or moved there?

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Life long

[bluestateguy]

3. That's why it's not a good idea to ever donate your sperm

You never know how the laws or court rulings could change years down the road.

[kelliekat44]

13. Or your eggs for that matter. nt

[jody]

4. Script rewritten, "Toto, I've a feeling we're in Kansas." nt

[appleannie1]

6. Nice way to prevent couples from becoming parents if the are lesbian or the husband can't father.

a child.

[Squinch]

30. +1. Wonder if that's the agenda here. Bet it is.

[Summer Hathaway]

51. Absolutely the agenda here.

Scare off sperm donors with potential after-the-fact financial responsibilities = less gay/lesbian couples parenting children.

As obvious as it is shameless.

[dembotoz]

7. kansas is sort of the test tube version of republican rule

i lived in kck during the mid 70s as a vista

it seemed ok back them but i never had a desire to put down roots there.

i guess i am happy i got out when i did

[Capt.Rocky300]

8. A good friend of mine..........

was transferred from Portland, OR to Olathe a few years ago. He refers to it as Kansasstan.

[SheilaT]

58. From Portland to Olathe?

Oh, how the gods must hate him. What do you suppose he did that they punished him like that?

[dkf]

9. Does that mean the mother opened herself up to losing custody

Especially if she is unable to care for the child?

[Major Nikon]

17. Your wingnut slip is showing again

Gingrich and other wingnuts floated the idea of bringing back orphanages for welfare mothers. It wasn't well received even among Republicans. The idea is completely despicable and ludicrous and is only gets much traction in the wingnuttiest of wingnut circles.

[dkf]

22. So financial circumstance is never a consideration in custody?

I didn't realize that. So sorry.

[Major Nikon]

24. So where does it say custody was in contention at all?

Now you're just being disengenuous after being busted for peddling wingnut nonsense.....again.

[FreeJoe]

27. i think it raises an interesting point

If he can be forced to pay child support, it seems reasonable that he could also insist on parental rights, possibly even including some form of custody. It really does seem like an insidious plot to make storm donation less attractive to both the donor and recipient.

[Major Nikon]

31. I'm pretty sure this is already the case pretty much everywhere

In this case there's zero evidence the biological father wants custodial privileges of any sort. The idea dkf is floating is that any woman who must rely on public assistance should be subject to having her kids taken away. It's among the wingnuttiest of wingnut ideas.

Newt Gingrich, the soon-to-be Republican Speaker of the House, was eager to flex his muscle. Minor controversy erupted over remarks he made about welfare reform and orphanages. Some Republicans had suggested that the nation could reduce welfare rolls by placing the children of welfare mothers in orphanages. The idea was to prohibit states from paying welfare benefits for two groups of children: Those whose paternity was not established and those born out of wedlock to women under 18. The savings, according to this proposal, would be used to establish and operate orphanages and group homes for unwed mothers.

I thought this was a horrible idea. In a speech before the New York Women's Agenda on Nov. 30, 1994, I criticized Gingrich.

Gingrich swung back: "I'd ask her to go to Blockbuster and rent the Mickey Rooney movie about Boys Town [an orphanage]. I don't understand liberals who live in enclaves of safety who say, 'Oh, this would be a terrible thing.'"
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.262-263 , Nov 1, 2003

[dsc]

38. It isn't the poster who brought this up it is the state

It seems only fair that if the man is going to have to pay for the child, as the state thinks he should, then he should have a shot at custody of the child.

[Major Nikon]

39. Nothing in the story says anything about custody

[dsc]

42. the money and custody come hand in hand

either he is a father or he isn't. If he is then he has to pay up and gets a shot at custody if he isn't then he doesn't pay and doesn't get a shot at custody.

[Major Nikon]

43. If he doesn't desire custody then it's a mute point

...and not worth my time discussing.

[dsc]

46. He may well want it now

[Major Nikon]

48. Sure. It's quite common for sperm donors to seek custody

You make a very good point.

[dsc]

49. One who have to pay support otherwise

Presumably he wouldn't have to pay support if he had custody.

[Major Nikon]

50. There's no indication that he's paying support now

The state is just trying to get him to pay support and he took them to court and will almost certainly prevail. The state's argument is ludicrous and is obviously only intended to punish and discourage homosexual couples from having children.

[dsc]

53. given the state of Kansas and elected judges

I wouldn't be 100% sure of his prevailing. One would hope that he does but one shouldn't count on it.

[Major Nikon]

57. The SCOTUS has already ruled on it

So it's hard to imagine any other outcome and even in the outside chance that he doesn't, an appeal to federal court is a slam dunk.

[Orrex]

34. Storm donation is always a tricky proposition.

[Dr. Strange]

54. What the hell's wrong with you?

Don't you know better than to end a sentence with a proposition?

[Chemisse]

28. It would sure seem so.

Although one can hardly blame the mother's actions.

But if the donor is responsible for child support, he could be equally in the running for custody of the child.

[Thinkingabout]

10. This department must be run by Todd Akin, just as stupid.

Some people needs to get a life, probably testing the waters here especially with a lesbian couple involved. They will say this is a good reason not to allow same sex partners.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. What's the matter with Kansas?

Just when you think they can't get any crazier...

[ProfessionalLeftist]

14. What bullshit. The man has no parental responsibility here.

What an effed-up sitch.

[Spryguy]

15. He needs to "man up" and "pay up!"

[Demo_Chris]

16. What? Going to assume this was sarcasm (nt)

[Earth_First]

19. My god...I hope so! n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. What?

[Care Acutely]

18. Kansas is some scary shit. Punish any and all living apart from the teabagger-approved

vision of 'Murica.

[Nye Bevan]

21. What a jerk-off thing to do (nt)

[kydo]

23. So are they going to pursue the fathers of all forced and aborted births as well?

just wondering.

mental note to self - avoid Kansas.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. That's probably next on the agenda

[Egalitarian Thug]

25. The pressure to become a theocracy is growing in so much of this country.

[raccoon]

26. I hope this one goes to the US Supreme Court. nt

[Chemisse]

29. This is a pretty interesting case.

The key point is the use of a physician for the insemination.

The state is saying if the semen was used at home, rather than inserted by a doctor, than the father is liable.

I can see where they would have to draw the line somewhere. What is to stop anybody from making similar arrangements with a guy they actually slept with? Or worse, having a boyfriend coerce a woman into signing similar documents?

It would be a slippery slope.

This could all be prevented if the lesbian couple were legally married (hopefully a possibility soon in all states) and the non-mother adopted the baby. Then it wouldn't matter how she got pregnant.

In the meantime, the poor guy! I hope he prevails.

[aaaaaa5a]

32. Further proof that men have no rights in family court.

I often refer to it as our next great civil rights cause... making men and women equal with regard to family, parental, divorce and custody law.

[Spryguy]

37. Haha...yeah...

We''ll worry about that when the vast discrimination women face in every other walk of life is made equal first.

[aaaaaa5a]

41. Ha... well...

at least you admit (as any objectionable person would) that there is vast discrimination against men in family court. In your case its just not at the top of your social agenda.

If nothing else, that's a start.

[Spryguy]

56. Men have all the rights and all the power. Everywhere.

This is a rare example of a little bit of the scales being balanced.

[aaaaaa5a]

59. Actually, I wouldn't call family court a "rare" example. Discrimination in this area is quite common

and the biased laws affect millions of people and have terrible impacts on millions of children and families across the country.


Some of us believe its important to fight injustice everywhere. Others believe bias against one group is okay, as long as the bias is against a group we don't support, because of our own personal prejudice.

[Spryguy]

60. Social Justice Theory would say you can't be biased against an oppressor.

Nor can you discriminate against a group that holds all the power. (In America, this means straight white christian men.)

[CanonRay]

33. Kansas is too screwed up to even drive through anymore

Not that it was ever a delight. It's vying with Mississippi for most fucked up state in the Union.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. You've obviously not driven through the right part of Kansas

The Flint Hills are absolutely beautiful.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. I-70 from Kansas City to Denver = surefire cure for

insomnia!

One giant wheatfield punctuated with an oil well\pump here and there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. So you slept from Topeka to Salina?

[TwilightGardener]

40. Christ on a cracker.

All I've got to say.

[Romulox]

44. What if the mother was a single mom, who wanted to raise the child on her own...

Should she and the biological father be allowed to agree together that the child shouldn't have a right to support from the father?

I think not.

So how is this "informal" surrogacy situation different?

[Kalidurga]

52. But, the mother wasn't a single mom.

This situation is different to say the least. IMO the other parent should be paying child support. This guy didn't agree to be a father and in fact was doing the couple a favor. It makes no difference if they were same sex or not.

[SDjack]

55. I spent a month in Kansas one afternoon. nt